HOW MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL BE MURDERED BY BLACKS TODAY?..........THE LOOTING ACROSS AMERICA is as black as the staggering murder and crime rates of BLACKS ACROSS AMERICA. Black Lives Matter? NO LIFE MATTERS TO BLACKS!

THE G.O.P. HAS ALWAYS BEEN ALIGNED WITH EXPLOITATION OF THE AMERICAN WORKER JUST AS THE DEMS ARE NOW THE PARTY OF LA RAZA ILLEGALS! WHO REALLY FIGHTS FOR JOBS FOR AMERICANS?*EVERY YEAR THERE ARE 1.5 MILLION ILLEGALS THAT HOP OUR BORDERS TO LOOT, AND 1.5 MILLION AMERICANS THAT FALL INTO POVERTY. IS THE MATH HARD TO DO ON THAT???CA ALONE BUTS OUT $20 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS, AND NEARLY HALF THE MURDERS IN MEXIFORNIA ARE BY MEXICAN GANGS!!! YOU REALLY WANT OPEN BORDERS AND POSTED! NO LEGAL NEED APPLY?

Although Mr. Smith’s E-Verify bill includes a three-year grace period before it would take effect for agriculture, growers — including many Republicans — still balked, saying they would not support it unless Congress provided a supply of legal immigrants for farms.

*IS LAMAR SMITH JOINING THE LA RAZA PARTY?FEW HAVE SPOKEN OUT MORE ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE MEXICAN INVASION ON JOBS THAN LAMAR SMITH. NOW HE SOUNDS LIKE A CORRUPT LA RAZA DEM!IN MEXIFORNIA, HOME OF TWO OF THE MOST CORRUPT DEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY, LA RAZA ENDORSED FEINSTEIN ( A MAJOR OBAMA DONOR AND WAR PROFITEER) AND BOXER, FEINSTEIN’S SIDEKICK TO SABOTAGE ALL ETHICS INVESTIGATION INTO FEINSTEIN’S CORRUPTION, HAVE TWICE PUSHED FOR A “SPECIAL AMNESTY” FOR 1.5 MILLION “CHEAP” LABOR ILLEGALS ON BEHALF OF THEIR GENEROUS BIG AG BIZ DONORS!FEINSTEIN BOXER PERPETRATED THIS AMNESTY DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONE-THIRD OF ALL “CHEAP” LABOR ILLEGAL FARM WORKERS END UP ON WELFARE! CA NOW PUTS OUT $20 BILLION PER YEAR TO ILLEGALS TO SUBSIDIZE EMPLOYERS OF QUASI-SLAVE LABOR FROM MEXICO!*LAMAR SMITH ON NO LEGAL NEED APPLY:

THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES! "We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers," said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. "President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws." *September 8, 2011

Lawmaker Offers Plan to Lure Migrant Farm WorkersBy JULIA PRESTONA leading Republican lawmaker has proposed creating a program to bring 500,000 foreign migrant farm workers to the United States each year, responding to an outcry this summer from American farmers who said shortages of legally authorized labor were imperiling their crops. The lawmaker, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced his farm guest worker bill late on Wednesday and held a hearing on it in the House on Thursday. He is proposing a thorough overhaul of the existing guest worker program for agriculture, known as H-2A, which is shunned by most growers as too bureaucratic and costly for their fast-changing labor needs in fields and orchards. Instead, farmers have turned to some 1.1 million illegal immigrants now estimated to be working in agriculture. Mr. Smith offered his proposal after a bill he introduced in June, designed to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining jobs in this country, generated a wave of resistance from farmers. That bill would require all employers nationwide to use a federal electronic system, known as E-Verify, to confirm that new hires are legally authorized to work here. Although Mr. Smith’s E-Verify bill includes a three-year grace period before it would take effect for agriculture, growers — including many Republicans — still balked, saying they would not support it unless Congress provided a supply of legal immigrants for farms. Mr. Smith’s guest worker proposal adds an important piece to the Republican strategy for the angrily contested issue of immigration as Washington moves into campaign season. He framed his plan as an alternative to granting legal status to illegal immigrants already in the country, the approach President Obama supports. Mr. Smith said his program would “provide growers who want to do the right thing with a reliable source of legal labor” and would also “protect the livelihoods of American workers and the rights of guest workers.” The bill drew divided reaction from growers’ organizations. Groups from North and South Carolina and Georgia, particularly those representing farmers who have tried to work with the H-2A program, liked the proposal. Many major farm organizations, including the California Farm Bureau Federation, said Mr. Smith’s program failed to meet their needs. At the hearing, Chalmers R. Carr III, a South Carolina peach grower who is president of USA Farmers, a group of employers using H-2A workers, said Mr. Smith’s bill “positively addresses most every major issue that has been raised by the agricultural industry for many years.” Mr. Smith’s proposal, for a new program he is calling H-2C, would shift management of the guest worker program from the Department of Labor, where he said farmers face a “culture of hostility,” to the Department of Agriculture. It would require only that employers attest that they had offered jobs to American workers, removing time-consuming procedural hurdles that farmers said had not helped attract Americans to strenuous migrant farm work. It would allow binding arbitration in guest worker contracts, which he said would reduce “frivolous litigation.” Many farm bureaus, however, are throwing their support behind a competing proposal by another Republican, Representative Dan Lungren of California. In an interview, Mr. Lungren said he would introduce his bill in the House next week. He said his talks with California growers had “proved to me you can’t get where we need to by reforming the H-2A program.” Under his program, foreign migrant workers would not be tied to specific farmers as they are under Mr. Smith’s plan, but they would be issued work documents allowing them to come to the United States for 10 months a year to work for any agricultural employer. With no provisions to legalize illegal immigrants, both proposals, which are rejected by farm worker groups, are expected to face strong opposition in the Democratic-controlled Senate. *http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/08/rep-lamar-smith-fights-for-e-verify-as.html

AS BARACK OBAMA IS HELL BENT ON SABOTAGING OUR BORDERS AND LAWS TO SATISFY HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE, REP. LAMAR SMITH CONTINUES TO SPEAK FOR THE AMERICAN WORKER!

AS OBAMA RECENTLY TOLD A CONVENTION OF LA RAZA, THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY IN AMERICAN FUNDED BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS, MANY OF HIS ADMINISTRATION ARE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST. HE’S ALSO TOLD LA RAZA THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE “OUR ENEMIES”. TRULY, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN A MAN THAT SEEMS TO ONLY BE PROACTIVE WHEN IT COMES TO ILLEGALS OR THE INTERESTS OF BANKSTERS???*

A Law to Verify the Immigration Status of WorkersPublished: August 7, 2011 ”Farmers Oppose G.O.P. Bill to Require Verification of Workers’ Immigration Status” (news article, July 31) didn’t tell the whole story. We could open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans by requiring all employers to use E-Verify. This program quickly identifies people working illegally in the United States and protects jobs for legal workers. Created in 1996, E-Verify allows employers to electronically verify the work eligibility of newly hired employees by checking their Social Security numbers. The “E” in E-Verify could just as well stand for “easy” and “effective.” It takes only one to two minutes to use per new hire and easily confirms 99.5 percent of work-eligible employees. Both businesses and the public support the expansion of E-Verify. Even though E-Verify is not mandatory, more than 270,000 American employers use it, and an average of 1,300 new businesses sign up each week. And according to a recent poll, 82 percent of likely voters think that all American employers should be required to use E-Verify. With millions of citizens and legal workers looking for work, it is critical that we promote policies that help grow our economy and increase job opportunities for Americans and legal immigrants. With a 21st-century tool already on the books, it makes sense to use it. A federal E-Verify law is the only way to ensure that all employers hire a legal work force. LAMAR SMITHWashington, Aug. 3, 2011 The writer, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the lead sponsor of the E-Verify bill. *AMERICANS IN ARIZONA SUED BY LA RAZA AND OBAMA, CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR E-VERIFY!

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/08/02/20110802consular-id-card-law-changes-heightens-migrants-fears.html*Labor Secretary Pledges Help For Illegal Workers Last Updated: Tue, 06/22/2010 - 11:00am Two months after the Department of Labor launched a special program to assist and protect illegal immigrants in the U.S. the Obama cabinet official who heads the agency is personally encouraging undocumented workers to report employers that don’t pay them fairly.In a Spanish-language public service announcement, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis assures that “every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not.” Illegal aliens who are not getting fair wages are encouraged to call a new hotline set up by the agency on a new “Podemos Ayudar” (We Can Help) web page designed to administer worker protection laws and ensure that employees are properly paid “regardless of immigration status.”In the short video, also posted in English, Solis tells illegal immigrants that it’s a “serious problem” when workers in this country are not paid fairly and that all workers have the right to receive their salary regardless of immigration status. She encourages those who are not to call the new hotline and assures it’s free and confidential. “Podemos ayudar,” (we can help), Solis guarantees at the end of the brief segment.The Labor Secretary’s new message is part of a campaign launched a few months ago to help illegal immigrant workers in the U.S., who she refers to as “vulnerable” and “underpaid.” At least 1,000 new field investigators have been deployed to reach out to Latino laborers in areas with large numbers of illegal alien employees and the agency will focus on enforcing labor and wage laws in industries that typically hire lots of illegal aliens without reporting anyone to federal immigration authorities.For a government agency to protect law breakers in this fashion may seem unbelievable but not if you consider the source. A Former California congresswoman, Solis has close ties to the influential La Raza movement that advocates open borders and rights for illegal immigrants. She made the protection of undocumented workers a major priority upon being named Labor Secretary, assuring illegal aliens that “if you work in this country, you are protected by our laws.”

"While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling "mules."

*July 13, 2011‘Backdoor Amnesty’: A Republican Chides ObamaTo the Editor: Your July 13 editorial “The Forgetful Mr. Smith” took a sentence in a letter several colleagues and I sent to the Clinton administration out of context, so you didn’t give your readers the whole story. This letter requested that the Immigration and Naturalization Service issue guidelines for removal proceedings in the most sympathetic cases: those that involve legal — not illegal — immigrants who committed a single minor crime but have been law-abiding residents ever since. While this authority is justifiable when used responsibly on a case-by-case basis, it’s clear that the Obama administration plans to abuse it. In recent years, Congress has defeated amnesty for illegal immigrants several times, but this has not stopped President Obama from trying to implement a backdoor amnesty. Over the last year, the Obama administration has ignored the will of Congress and the American people by using executive branch authority to allow illegal immigrants to remain living and working in the United States. That is why I have introduced a bill to prevent the Obama administration from abusing this power. The Obama administration should not pick and choose which laws it will enforce. Congress must put a halt to this administrative amnesty. LAMAR SMITHWashington, July 13, 2011 The writer, a Republican from Texas, is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

THE BELOW IS FROM MEX-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES, THE MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA PROPAGANDA! ALL AMERICANS THAT THINK LAWS APPLY TO LA RAZA ILLEGALS ARE EVIL ACCORDING TO THIS PUBLICATION!

WHILE THE VAST NUMBER OF AMERICANS STRUGGLE TO PAY FOR THE EVER INCREASING COST OF EDUCATION THEIR CHILDREN, PERRY, LIKE ANY LA RAZA DEM, WAS OFFERING SPECIAL DISCOUNTS TO LA RAZA! WE CAN’T END THE MEXICAN INVASION, OCCUPATION AND EVER EXPANDING WELFARE STATE UNTIL WE STOP SENDING INVITATIONS OUT TO ILLEGAL TO COME LOOT!

“In 2001, he signed into law a bill making Texas the first state to grant in-state college tuition rates and financial aid to immigrant children, regardless of their legal status. In 2009, roughly 1 percent of Texas college students — about 12,000 students — benefited from the law.”

THE TEXAS TRIBUNEGrist for Left and Right in Perry Immigration RecordBy JULIÁN AGUILAR and EMILY RAMSHAWPublished: September 8, 2011 Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit, has called Gov. Rick Perry “a little bit too much like George Bush” on immigration — and she does not mean it as a compliment. Tea Party loyalists have decried Mr. Perry’s opposition to a border fence and Arizona-style enforcement laws. And Mitt Romney has taken not-so-veiled jabs at Mr. Perry, criticizing officials who provide “incentives that promote illegal immigration.”

Expanded coverage of Texas is produced by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit news organization. To join the conversation about this article, go to texastribune.org.

A curated site for information on Gov. Rick Perry’s political career and policy positions: texastribune.org/perrypedia.As Mr. Perry edges into front-runner status for the Republican presidential nomination, his opponents are trying to plant seeds of doubt about how tough the border state’s governor has been on illegal immigration — from his compassion for immigrant students to the tightrope he has walked between securing the border and protecting Texas’ symbiotic relationship with Mexico. Critics hope his track record, which some have generalized as tough on security and gentle on people, will be a complicating factor for the Republican faithful. “You can’t even have an honest discussion about the economy without taking into consideration illegal immigration,” said Katrina Pierson, a member of the Dallas Tea Party’s steering committee. “Governor Perry has not met the standards, for me, to be the president of the United States if he can’t even address the real issues in Texas.” The governor’s campaign counters that a serious discussion about immigration reform cannot take place until the Mexican border is secure. “The Obama administration has failed to do so, but as president, Governor Perry will deploy adequate resources, manpower and technology to get the job done,” said Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry’s first immigration-related move as governor was probably his most controversial. In 2001, he signed into law a bill making Texas the first state to grant in-state college tuition rates and financial aid to immigrant children, regardless of their legal status. In 2009, roughly 1 percent of Texas college students — about 12,000 students — benefited from the law. Two years later, Mr. Perry joined forces with Vicente Fox, then the president of Mexico, to advocate for overhauling guest-worker laws. When the fiscal conservative commentator Lou Dobbs questioned him on immigration on CNN in 2003, Mr. Perry said that Texas had a “close, complex” relationship with Mexico, and that businesses relied on immigrants for affordable labor. To that end, Mr. Perry has split with the platform of the Texas Republican Party, asserting that an Arizona-style immigration enforcement law — in which the authorities are required to question people about their legal status — is not a good fit for Texas. “We have to understand why millions of people come here and why many more have died trying,” Mr. Perry said in his 2007 inaugural address. “It is for something as basic as the freedom to find a job and feed their families.” Mr. Perry’s compassion ends where he believes Texas’ security concerns begin. He has never wavered in his desire to secure the 1,200-mile Texas-Mexico border with manpower, not “preposterous” fencing, or in his frustration with the federal government, which he believes has not adequately protected Texas from the drug violence raging across the Rio Grande. In 2005, Mr. Perry announced a $10 million state program to increase border patrols and upgrade radio systems along the border. A year later, he unveiled plans to install hundreds of video cameras, creating a multimillion-dollar “virtual” wall that in its first four years proved overly ambitious, netting few arrests. Though Mr. Perry expressed support for improving guest-worker programs in 2003, when President George W. Bush pushed for it in 2005, the governor’s frustration with the federal government kept him from supporting it. Meanwhile, Mr. Perry has remained at war with the Obama administration over his request in 2010 for 1,000 National Guard troops along the border; he got 250. In August, he asked the federal government to reimburse Texas $350 million, the estimated cost of imprisoning illegal immigrants in state lockups. The immigration debate has at times been a minefield for Mr. Perry, who has had to balance the ardently anti-immigration views of his base with the backing of his major donors, some of whom often rely on immigrant labor. And the governor’s rhetoric — and his tone — has ebbed and flowed, coinciding with his re-election bids and a State Legislature that is growing ever redder. In 2009, he endorsed legislation, which has since passed, requiring Texans to present a form of photo identification to vote, although some opponents said it singled out minority voters. And this year, in the lead-up to his run for president, Mr. Perry deemed a measure to outlaw so-called sanctuary cities in Texas a legislative emergency. The bill would have stripped state financing for municipalities that barred local law enforcement from inquiring into the immigration status of individuals detained for any crime. Though Mr. Perry tried to differentiate the bill from the strict Arizona law, the legislation ultimately died, largely because of an 11th-hour push from Republican businessmen — some of the governor’s financial backers — who opposed it. Despite his recent efforts, Mr. Perry has largely remained opposed to legislation backed by the most conservative lawmakers, including efforts to repeal the tuition law and measures that would end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. This stance has been highly unpopular with the Tea Party. “Governor Perry has been governor for 10 years,” said JoAnn Fleming, the chairwoman of the Texas Tea Party Caucus Advisory Committee, “and we’ve not had enough interior enforcement of immigration laws.” But it has not won him many fans among progressives either, whose strategy is to keep the memory of sanctuary cities fresh in the minds of Hispanic voters until the 2012 general election. “No candidate will be more effective at alienating Hispanic voters than Rick Perry,” said Shannon Perez, the political coordinator in Texas for the Service Employees International Union. And neither side particularly trusts the conservative business community. Last week, an e-mail surfaced from some of the Republican donors who urged Mr. Perry to back down on sanctuary cities, offering the governor’s critics low-hanging fruit. In the message, Norman Adams, a co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy, congratulated members for helping raise $205,000 for Mr. Perry’s presidential campaign and said their efforts were the key to courting Hispanic voters. For Mr. Perry, criticism from both sides of the political spectrum is hardly new. In past races for governor, former Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison accused him of being lax on immigration — to no avail. On the presidential trail, and as recently as the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday, Mr. Perry has taken heat from Mr. Romney, who, trailing Mr. Perry in several national polls, has made a point of reminding voters that as Massachusetts governor, he vetoed legislation that would have provided in-state tuition to illegal immigrants and strengthened the authority that state troopers have to enforce immigration laws. Mr. Perry has said that young students should not be punished for their parents’ decisions, that a border fence will do nothing but bolster the “35-foot-ladder business, and that Arizona-style enforcement laws are not appropriate for Texas, a state that is 38 percent Hispanic. But his latest talking points also include opposition to amnesty and to national legislation that would provide a path to legal residency for some children living in the country illegally. jaguilar@texastribune.orgeramshaw@texastribune.org *http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/08/rick-perry-la-razas-republican.html

*

THE BEST WAY TO KEEP YOUR CORPORATE PAYMASTERS HAPPY AND GENEROUS $$$ IS TO PUT AN ILLEGAL IN A JOB TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED!*VIDEO

Rick Perry AGREES with Obama: Open Borders for America! (Video: Please favorite, share, comment, everyone needs to see this fast.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwD84nKA5y0&feature=player_embedded

The ALIPAC Team www.alipac.us

If you forward our emails to others, please remember to remove the info at the bottom so nobody unsubscribes you from our lists.*JOE LEGAL vs JOSE ILLEGAL… WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? JOSE ILLEGAL GETS THE JOB, AND JOE ILLEGALS GETS THE TAX BILL TO PAY FOR JOSE ILLEGALS’ ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING!

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/joe-american-legal-vs-la-raza-jose.html*IS RICK PERRY NOT LA RAZA’S REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY AND CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS?

VIVA LA RAZA? THE MEX OCCUPATION COSTS LEGALS $20 BILLION IN MEXIFORNIA, WHERE ACCORDING TO ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS, NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS ARE BY MEXICAN GANGS.

llegal Immigration Fighters Have No Confidence in Rick Perry

Friends of ALIPAC,

We do not endorse in the Presidential races, but we do educate the public about the real records of politicians running for that office.

Tonight, a biased Associated Press article is heading for papers across the nation. It should be all over the place tomorrow.

We will provide you with Rick Perry's accurate record on illegal immigration along with all of the other candidates running. Candidates will go into one of three catagories. Amnesty Supporter, Law Enforcer, or Unknown.

Texas Governor Rick Perry is clearly in the Amnesty catagory due to his support for Dream Act Amnesty and In-state tuition for illegal aliens in Texas. Perry has also bashed Americans that want fencing along the Southern Border. While he has called on Washington, DC, to do more to secure the border, he has often used such rhetoric to conceal his own failures to act against illegal immigration as Governor of America's second most populous state!

Perry has positions on immigration that are almost identical to the pro-Amnesty positions of George Bush and John McCain.

Please read and and share this biased Associated Press article we have retitled.

(Far right questions Rick Perry on immigration)

Renamed

Illegal Immigration Fighters Have No Confidence in Rick Perry

http://www.alipac.us/article-6484-thread-1-0.html

*FIGHTING FOR THE AMERICAN WORKER IS LAMAR SMITH

BELOW IS ONLY ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF HOW BARACK OBAMA IS SABOTAGING OUR BORDER SECURITY TO APPEASE HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE AND KEEP THE NATION FLOODED WITH “CHEAP” LABOR ILLEGALS, MANY OF WHOM ARE CRIMINALS!

*FAIR Legislative Update August 1, 2011House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on HALT ActOn Tuesday, the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement held a hearing on H.R. 2497, the “Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation” or “HALT” Act. The HALT Act, introduced by Judiciary Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), would suspend President Obama’s use of “prosecutorial discretion”—the ability of the executive branch to decline to enforce immigration law against individuals—by preventing him from: • Granting deferred action, parole, or extended voluntary departure to illegal aliens other than those being tried for a crime or acting as a witness at trial, those needed for significant law enforcement or national security purposes, or those whose life is imminently threatened (§§2(b), 2(f)); • Waiving the three and ten year bars to admission for aliens who have been illegally present in the U.S. (§2(a)); • Cancelling the removal and adjusting the status of illegal aliens ordered deported (§2(c)); • Designating additional countries as qualifying for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) (§2(d)); and • Granting work authorization to illegal aliens (§§2(e), 2(g)). (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, July 18, 2011) Rep. Smith outlined the need for the HALT Act’s restriction of the Obama Administration’s use of prosecutorial discretion in his opening statement. “What had once been rumor fueled by leaked administration memos is now official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy as of last month,” he said referencing two June 17th, 2011 memos issued by ICE Director, John Morton, authorizing ICE personnel to decline to enforce immigration laws against certain classes of illegal aliens, such as those who would qualify for amnesty under the failed DREAM Act. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, June 27, 2011) “Unfortunately, the ICE memos make clear that DHS plans not to use but to abuse these [prosecutorial discretion] powers. If the Obama Administration has its way, millions of illegal immigrants will be able to live and work legally in the United States. This unilateral decision will saddle American communities with the costs of providing education and medical care to illegal immigrants.” Several witnesses testifying before the Subcommittee agreed with Rep. Smith’s call for limiting the Administration’s authority, expressing concern that the President is bypassing Congress. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), author of the Senate version of the HALT Act (S.1380), asserted in his written testimony: “In 1996, Congress clearly limited the Administration’s parole authority to be used ‘only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. However, these memos make clear that DHS plans to abuse these powers to grant mass legalization without any Congressional authorization.” (Testimony of Sen. David Vitter, July 26, 2011) Likewise, Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, stated that forms of relief granted through the use of prosecutorial discretion is “designed to be used for exceptionally compelling cases, and were not intended as a way for the President, his appointees, or government staff to bypass Congress and its unique authority to make immigration law.” (Testimony of Jessica Vaughan, July 26, 2011) Chris Crane, President of a national ICE union representing roughly 7,000 employees, also testified in support of the HALT Act, describing the problems caused by the latest string of Morton memos. “The purpose of this policy is to prohibit officers and agents from arresting individuals from certain groups... From an enforcement standpoint, the biggest dilemma facing officers and agents in the field may be how to apply the policy to the hundreds of thousands of aliens encountered each year.” (Testimony of Chris Crane, July 26, 2011) Last summer, the union Crane represents issued a vote of no-confidence in ICE Director John Morton, and former Assistant Director of the ICE Office of Detention and Policy and Planning, Phyllis Coven. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Aug. 9, 2010)Margaret Stock, the only witness who opposed the HALT Act, alleged, “Our immigration system is dysfunctional and irrational, and the situation only promises to get worse without comprehensive action by Congress.” (Testimony of Margaret Stock, July 26, 2011) “Our nation’s ever more complex and restrictive legal immigration system makes it nearly impossible for most people to immigrate to the United States legally, and provides no means for people to enter or stay in the United States legally in many compelling circumstances,” she added. (Id.) Ms. Stock, an adjunct professor and retired army colonel, also testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the DREAM Act last month.

AMERICANS CAN SEEM TO CATCH ON THAT OBAMA DOES HAVE A JOBS PLAN; IT’S THE SAME ON HE’S FROM FIRST DAY IN OFFICE! AMNESTY!

OBAMA KNEW HE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO CON US WITH HIS PERFORMANCES OF “CHANGE” TOO LONG. WE’D HAVE TO CATCH ON THAT HE WAS NO MORE THAN A THIRD BUSH TERM. IT WASN’T BY ACCIDENT THAT ALSO FROM HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE OBAMA FILLED HIS ADMINISTRATION WITH BUSH’S BANKSTER PEOPLE, LIKE BUSH ARCHITECT FOR BANK WELFARE, TIM GEITHNER. BEYOND CORRUPT WALL STREETERS, OBAMA HAS INFESTED HIS ADMINISTRATION WITH LA RAZA SUPREMACIST. HIS SEC OF LABOR IS ONE SUCH LA RAZA SUPREMACIST WORKING MORE FOR ILLEGALS THAN ANYONE! WHAT IS THE MESSAGE THERE? LAWS AGAINST HIRING ILLEGALS WILL NEVER BE ENFORCED BY THIS PRESIDENT.

CURRENTLY, OBAMA HAS JUST GRANTED DE FACTO AMNESTY TO 300,000 ILLEGALS THAT SHOULD BE DEPORTED. HE TELLS THEM TO HANG AROUND, STEAL JOBS AND LOOT THIS COUNTRY LIKE THE MEXICANS ARE SO PRONE TO DOING!

WHEN OBAMA BROUGHT IN BILL DALEY AS CHIEF-OF-STAFF IT WAS FOR ONE REASON, DALEY WAS CONNECTED TO ALL THE CRIMINAL BANKSTERS THAT HAVE BEEN SO GENEROUS TO OBAMA, AND IS LIKE OBAMA AN ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS.*CHECK OUT OBAMA’S LA RAZA INFESTED ADMINISTRATION:

*http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-exposed-obamas-la-raza-open.html*“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” ….. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*While hailed by his Democratic supporters as the return of a new combative Obama, his phony populist demagogy about the need for immediate action and commitment to ensuring that every American received a “fair shake” stood in stark contrast to the actual content of the policies advanced in the speech.

Obama outlines right-wing program in “jobs” speechBy Bill Van Auken 9 September 2011The speech delivered by President Barack Obama to a joint session of Congress Thursday night was billed as the presentation of a new government initiative to confront the worst unemployment crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Instead, it underscored yet again the unwillingness and inability of the US financial elite and its two major parties to implement a single meaningful measure to aid the 25 million Americans who are unable to find full time work.The “American Jobs Act” trumpeted by Obama from the podium of the House of Representatives represents a laundry list of right-wing proposals, all of which he justified as having been supported by Republicans, sections of big business or the US Chamber of Commerce.While hailed by his Democratic supporters as the return of a new combative Obama, his phony populist demagogy about the need for immediate action and commitment to ensuring that every American received a “fair shake” stood in stark contrast to the actual content of the policies advanced in the speech. All the proposals, moreover, will be paid for by even deeper attacks on core social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.The speech came on the same day that the US Department of Labor released weekly unemployment figures showing that the number of people filing new unemployment claims had risen by 2,000 again to a seasonally adjusted 414,000. Even more telling was the most recent four-week average of new filings for unemployment benefits, which rose by 3,750 to 414,750.This follows the report that in August, zero net jobs were added to the economy. It is estimated that 11.2 million jobs would have to be created to reach the employment levels that existed before the meltdown of the capitalist financial system three years ago.Current conditions are catastrophic for the unemployed, with nearly five jobless workers chasing every new job opening. Meanwhile, the wave of budget cutting carried out by Democratic and Republican administrations alike on the federal, state and local levels are adding tens of thousands of workers to the jobless rolls every month.In its scale, estimated at $300 billion, the “American Jobs Act” represents little more in dollar terms than half of the stimulus package proposed by Obama and enacted by Congress two years ago. That package itself was dwarfed by the scale of the crisis and had only a marginal and temporary impact in terms of limiting the growth in unemployment, while doing little to reduce the overall jobless rate or the number of long-term unemployed, which now stands higher than at any time since the 1930s.While Obama presented no breakdown of the overall cost of the proposed act, the plan reportedly calls for just $100 billion for infrastructure projects, such as repairing highways and bridges. This is 50 percent less than what Congress appropriated to fund the ongoing US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal 2011. Such are the real priorities of American capitalism.Even it were approved, the infrastructure proposal, which has been supported by Republican Congressional leaders, would amount to little more than a boondoggle to corporate interests, geared to funneling money to private companies. The measure has also been backed by the US Chamber of Commerce, the main business lobbying group.Among the Republican policies promoted by Obama was a program known as “Georgia Work$,” which sends unemployed workers to private sector employers to work as unpaid trainees for six weeks, with the state paying the usual benefits plus only a small stipend to cover transportation costs. Georgia officials said they were surprised that the program, which is virtually bankrupt and has enlisted less than 100 people since February, would be touted as a model. Its apparent attraction is that it holds out the prospect of doing away with traditional jobless benefits and forcing the unemployed to work without pay.The bulk of the “American Job Act’s” funding would go to pay for tax breaks and another extension of unemployment benefits, neither of which will produce any appreciable reduction in the number of unemployed.At the center of the proposal is the conception that only the private sector can create jobs, and that the government can prod it along with the offer of tax incentives. The reality, however, is that corporate America is sitting on a cash hoard amounting to trillions of dollars, fed by record profits and government bailouts, and has shown no inclination to utilize these vast resources to provide jobs for the unemployed. A reduction in payroll taxes or tax incentives for hiring veterans or the long-term unemployed will not change this class policy.Moreover, by cutting these taxes, the Obama administration is starving core social programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—for funds, helping to create a justification for inflicting even more savage budget cuts.In his speech, Obama pledged money spent on the “American Jobs Act” will be offset by increased cuts in government spending.“The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next ten years,” Obama said. “It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I’m asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act.”He specified that this would be done by making “additional spending cuts” including to Medicare and Medicaid, winning a standing ovation from many congressional Republicans.He added that he would propose changes in the tax code affecting “tax breaks and loopholes” for the rich and corporations. The reality, however, is that the super-rich have benefited not merely from a few loopholes, but rather the cutting of the top tax rate in half over the past 15 years. As for the corporations, Obama promised that elimination of loopholes would be accompanied by a lowering of the corporate tax rate, driving profits even higher.Along similar lines, Obama pledged to eliminate “rules and regulations that place an unnecessary burden on businesses,” a policy that he pursued last week with the rejection of a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency to tighten standards for smog. While the EPA found that the regulation would prevent thousands of premature deaths, the Obama White House overruled it on the basis that it would unduly cut into corporate profits.Three quarters of a century ago, the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt found the resources to put millions of Americans to work through programs like the Works Progress Administration, that were responsible for nationwide construction and repair of basic infrastructure, from highways to airports to national parks.Driven by tumultuous struggles of the American working class and the fears that example of the 1917 workers’ revolution Russia could be repeated, Roosevelt set about to save capitalism from itself.Today, Obama cannot even hint at creating such a program. The protracted crisis of American capitalism has left the United States a declining power and the most heavily indebted country in the world. Moreover, the American ruling elite is increasingly dominated by a financial oligarchy that has amassed obscene fortunes not through production, but rather Wall Street speculation that crosses over into criminality.This ruling class is prosecuting a savage assault on living standards and basic social rights of the working class, in which mass unemployment is viewed as an indispensable weapon in driving down wages and ripping up fundamental social programs.In this counterrevolutionary offensive, it enjoys the full backing of the existing trade unions, whose privileged and well-paid bureaucracy is collaborating in slashing wages and benefits of the workers it purports to represent. Significantly, within hours of the speech, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, an invited guest of the president, hailed Obama for having “showed working people that he is willing to go to the mat to create new jobs on a substantial scale.”Obama’s speech and the reactionary content of the “American Jobs Act” demonstrate once again that the beginning of any genuine struggle for jobs is the independent political mobilization of the working class against a social and political system that subordinates economic life to the profits of the dominant banks and corporations and the accumulation of wealth by the top 1 percent.Working people must start from the standpoint that decent employment is an elementary social right, without which no other rights have any real content. To secure this right requires recovering the vast wealth monopolized by the financial and corporate elite and using it to create a massive public works program, ensuring decent jobs for all. To halt mass layoffs and further social cutbacks, the major banks and corporations must be turned into publicly owned enterprises under the democratic control of the working class.*http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-rich-and-illegals-vow-to-reelect.html*

For years, statistics have depicted growing income disparity in the United States, and it has reached levels not seen since the Great Depression. In 2008, the last year for which data are available, for example, the top 0.1 percent of earners took in more than 10 percent of the personal income in the United States, including capital gains, and the top 1 percent took in more than 20 percent. But economists had little idea who these people were. How many were Wall street financiers? Sports stars? Entrepreneurs? Economists could only speculate, and debates over what is fair stalled.Now a mounting body of economic research indicates that the rise in pay for company executives is a critical feature in the widening income gap. *Yet Obama plods along, raising gobs of cash for his reelection bid — he was scheduled to speak at two DNC fundraisers Monday night — and varying little the words he reads from the teleprompter. He seemed detached even from those words Monday as he pivoted his head from side to side, proclaiming that “our problems is not confidence in our credit” and turning his bipartisan fiscal commission into a “biparticle.”*OBAMA, THE BIGGEST CON JOB IN AMERICAN HISTORY?http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/08/obama-why-his-rich-donors-and-criminal.html*Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

HE WALKS ABOUT LIKE A SOVEREIGN PRETENDING TO BE ABOVE IT ALL AS HE SERVICES HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS AND TURNS THE WHITE HOUSE INTO HEADQUARTERS FOR THE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST PARTY.REALITY OF AMERICAN UNDER OBAMA’S ASSAULT ON THE AMERICAN WORKER:http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/joe-american-legal-vs-la-raza-jose.html

*

Proving that President Obama is the first choice of Wall Street and the American super-rich, his reelection campaign announced Wednesday that it had broken all previous records for fundraising, raking in $86 million during the second quarter of this year.

Obama campaign raises record sums from the wealthyBy Patrick Martin 15 July 2011Proving that President Obama is the first choice of Wall Street and the American super-rich, his reelection campaign announced Wednesday that it had broken all previous records for fundraising, raking in $86 million during the second quarter of this year.The $86 million total dwarfed the previous record for presidential reelection fundraising, the $50 million raised by George W. Bush in the third quarter of 2003. It was far above the $60 million target set by Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina.Obama for America, the official name of the reelection effort, raised $47 million, while the Democratic National Committee collected $38 million, largely from fundraising events featuring the president, where big donors are allowed to give up to $30,800 apiece. Individual donations to Obama for America are limited under federal election laws to a maximum of $5,000.By comparison, the leading Republican fundraiser, former Massachusetts governor and investment banker Mitt Romney, raised $18.25 million in the April-June quarter. The total raised by all the Republican presidential hopefuls who have filed reports with the Federal Election Commission came to only $36 million, less than half Obama’s haul.The Obama reelection campaign will be the most lavishly funded in American history. It is expected to dwarf the $745 million Obama raised in 2008, and could top the $1 billion mark. Only two decades ago, $20 million was sufficient to finance a full-scale presidential campaign.According to press accounts, the Obama campaign has already opened 60 offices in various states around the country, nearly a year and a half before Election Day, and hired hundreds of full-time operatives.The vast fund-raising comes in two relatively distinct components: over half a million small donors, reflecting lingering illusions in Obama in sections of the population; and large donors, from the wealthy and the most affluent sections of the upper-middle class.A total of 552,462 individuals gave money during the second quarter, including 260,000 who made no donations during the 2008 campaign. Of these, 98 percent were of $250 or less, with an average contribution of $69. Based on that average, the small donations accounted for less than half the total raised, about $37 million.The remainder, about $49 million, came in large-dollar contributions, including thousands who gave the maximum of $35,800—$30,800 to the DNC and $5,000 to Obama for America.The Washington Post noted, “Much of the tens of millions Obama raised through the Democratic National Committee came from big fundraising events that the president attended throughout the spring. Donors to the DNC can give up to $30,800, and many of those who made the maximum contribution got to attend intimate, invitation-only dinners at which the president took their questions behind closed doors.”Moreover, the total number of small donors was deliberately inflated by a promotion run by the campaign in which anyone who gave as little as $5 was entered into a lottery for a dinner with Obama and Vice President Biden.The Obama campaign, clearly concerned about releasing information that would demonstrate corporate America’s enthusiasm for the president’s reelection, declined to say how much Obama for America raised from large donors. These numbers will be buried in the 15,000-page report the campaign files Friday with the FEC.The report to the FEC will also detail the amount raised by “bundlers,” those who solicit donations from a group of individuals and reach a total set by the campaign, of $350,000 or more, as well as a group called Gen44, consisting of individuals younger than 40 who raise $100,000 or more.While the 2008 Obama campaign was regularly described as fueled by small donors, the actual figures demonstrate the opposite: Obama did indeed raise $180 million from that source, but that came to less than one-quarter of his overall fundraising. Nearly half of his total—and the bulk of the early money, critical to sustaining his campaign against the initial frontrunner, Hillary Clinton—came from big donors.Some details of the wooing of big-ticket donors were reported in the Washington press. The Post reported June 29, “Campaign officials are working to broaden Obama’s network of ‘bundlers,’ the well-connected rainmakers tasked with soliciting big checks from wealthy donors, while seeking to preserve the aura of a grass-roots movement by luring back the kind of small Internet donations that helped shatter fundraising records four years ago. Obama has attended 28 fundraisers from coast to coast—a pace that could continue, or even accelerate, over the next several months.”The Post noted that White House Chief of Staff William Daley, former vice chairman of JP Morgan Chase “has huddled in recent weeks over breakfasts and dinners with business leaders and Wall Street financiers in Chicago, New York and Washington,” while campaign manager Messina “made his pitch during at least two meetings in Manhattan with Wall Street executives.”Politico described one Wall Street fundraising dinner held at Daniel, a top-drawer restaurant on Manhattan’s Upper East Side: “The tables were filled with moneymen like Marc Lasry, the billionaire founder of the hedge fund Avenue Capital; Robert Wolf, the chief executive of UBS Group Americas; and Mark T. Gallogly, a co-founder of Centerbridge Partners.”While noting the absence of Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, this was said to be by mutual agreement—an effort to avoid photographs of the president shaking hands with the CEOs of the largest recipients of federal bailouts.“While Wall Street executives still complain about the president’s name-calling and pressure for a regulatory overhaul,” Politico observed cynically, “many say privately that his bark has been worse than his bite.”The event raised $2.3 million in a single evening, far more than the projected $1.5 million. Politico concluded that “Obama’s campaign set a goal of getting 400 individuals to each help raise $350,000 by year’s end. That may sound like a tall order—especially with much of Wall Street on the sidelines—but early indications suggest the effort is on track, according to people involved in the campaign.”*

Mr. Cool turns coldBy Richard Cohen, Published: August 8In her autobiography, Helen Gahagan Douglas recalled telling President Franklin D. Roosevelt about her visits to the camps of migrant workers. She was especially poignant about the children and their lack of Christmas toys when the president tried to stop her. “Don’t tell me any more, Helen,” FDR told the woman who is probably best known for losing a dirty Senate race to Richard Nixon. She was stunned. Roosevelt was crying. Can anyone imagine Barack Obama doing anything similar?The answer — at least my answer — is no. And this is quite amazing when you think about it. FDR was a Hudson River squire — down to his cigarette holder and cape. Nonetheless, he could connect to the less fortunate. Obama, in contrast, was raised in the great American muddle, not rich and not poor. Yet when the stock market fell more than 500 points last week and the image that night was of the president whooping it up at his birthday party, the juxtaposition — just bad timing, of course — seemed appropriate. He does not seem to care.This quality of Obama’s, this inability to communicate what many of us think he must be feeling, has lately cost many trees their dear lives — reams of essays and op-ed pieces. One of the more interesting ones, by Drew Westen, a psychology professor at Emory University, ran in Sunday’s New York Times. It cited Obama’s frequent inability or unwillingness to explain himself or to appear empathetic. All this is true. But Westen’s most salient point was contained in the title: “What Happened to Obama?” The answer: Nothing.Obama has always been the man he is today. He is the very personification of cognitive dissonance — the gap between what we (especially liberals) expected of the first serious African American presidential candidate and the man he in fact is. He has next to none of the rhetorical qualities of the old-time black politicians. He would eschew the cliche, but he feels little of their pain. In this sense, he has been patronized by liberals who looked at a man and saw black and has been reviled by those who looked at a black man and saw “other.” Westen faults Obama for his lack of storytelling abilities. But this is because Obama is himself the story. Consider for a moment that Obama’s account of how he had to fight to get medical coverage for his dying mother is not exactly true. The White House’s response to this revelation was grudging silence. It did not dispute the story and it soon died. This was because the Obama story is not what he says but who he is. That remains unchanged, and so the very people who would pummel a Republican for such a mischaracterization were silent about Obama’s. Obama did not deign to reply. He does not have to.Obama’s communications handicap, his loathing for the pornography of politics, could cost him a second term. In the current New York Review of Books, Andrew Hacker cites the findings of the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato to point out that “an usually high proportion” of Obama’s 2008 majority came from new voters, “notably students and minorities.” If a large number of these Obama voters are no longer elated by the historic novelty of the candidate and/or are disappointed by his performance, turnout will be depressed and Obama will be in peril. The passion of his haters is fearsome; his admirers cannot be tepid. Only the GOP can save Obama. His political shortcomings cannot be fixed because he is who he is. He can rely on running against a party that has the soul of an actuarial table and will cut programs that the poor and the middle class adore. Whoever that Republican candidate may be, he or she will be stuck in the amber of the early primaries and caucuses where extremism runs rampant and moderates go to die. Neither Jon Huntsman nor Mitt Romney has so far shown the political dexterity to squiggle out of the box that is the Iowa or South Carolina contests.Obama is the very soul of common sense. As he talks, I nod my head in agreement. Mostly, I think, he has done the right thing. But I doubt anyone will ever recount how he cried in the Oval Office any more than I can recall a soaring passage from a speech. This president got elected because he was cool. He could be defeated because he is cold.*WASHINGTON — This is one anniversary few feel like celebrating. Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s. After previous recessions, people in all income groups tended to benefit. This time, ordinary Americans are struggling with job insecurity, too much debt and pay raises that haven't kept up with prices at the grocery store and gas station. The economy's meager gains are going mostly to the wealthiest. *